memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Do not disrupt Memory Alpha to prove a point
State your point; do not prove it experimentally Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. In the past, some archivists have found their wikistress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has, in their view, been handled unfairly. The archivist may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. Moreover, the archivist may postulate: "What if everyone did that?" While such examples are legitimate to cite in a discussion, two important aspects of Memory Alpha should also be considered: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (Some argue that these are not defects.) In this situation, it is tempting to illustrate a point using either or some form of . For example, the archivist may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally : i.e., In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Some readers consider such techniques spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are of edits that are not made in , and which are . Generally, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and . Specific kinds of "disruption to illustrate a point" Gaming the system :For further information, see . Gaming the system means using Memory Alpha policies and guidelines in , to deliberately thwart the aims of Memory Alpha and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is and, in some cases, a form of . It usually involves improper use of (or appeal to) a policy, to purposefully derail or disrupt Memory Alpha processes, to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance. Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to): # # Playing policies against each other # Relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy # Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper # Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply such as verifiability but willfully ignoring others such as neutrality) # Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community # # Stonewalling (willfully stalling discussion or preventing it moving forward) # "Borderlining" (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach to make it hard to actually prove misconduct) # Gaming can sometimes overlap with policies and guidelines such as (including "disruption to illustrate a point"), (including posting of repeated spurious "warnings"), personal attacks, and failure to . If there is no evidence of improper intent or there is a genuine mistake, it is not usually considered to be gaming. It may well be, however, if the action is deliberate, or it is clear there is no way they can reasonably claim to be unaware. Refusal to "get the point" In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, , and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point. Memory Alpha is based upon collaborative good faith editing and . When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to "get the point" despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant – it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point. Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem. Hoaxes On a related note, please do not attempt to put misinformation into Memory Alpha to test our ability to detect and remove it; this wastes everyone's time, including yours. See . Examples *'If' somebody suggests that Memory Alpha should become a majority-rule democratic community... **'do' point out that it is entirely possible for archivists to create and vote more than once. **'do not' create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you. *'If' someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion (Pfd)... **'do' make your case clearly on Pfd, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying. **'do not' create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on Pfd. *'If' someone lists one of your favorite articles on PfD and calls it "silly", and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier articles... **'do' state your case on Pfd in favor of the article. **'do not' list hundreds of other articles on Pfd in one day to try to save it. *'If' an article you've nominated for deletion on Pfd is not deleted... **'do' reconsider whether your nomination was justified. **'do not' frivolously nominate the same article for featured article status. *'If' someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling them "unimportant"... **'do' argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article. **'do not' delete all of the information about every person from the article, calling it "unimportant". *'If' you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline... **'do' set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus **'do not' push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion *'If' you're upset someone didn't follow process in making a change... **'do' find out why they did it and attempt to convince them otherwise **'do not' revert an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process" (see ) *'If' you think that a particular template is silly and pointless... **'do' discuss the matter on the template's talk page, or more broadly in Ten Forward **'do not' forge an implausible award to yourself to highlight how silly you think it is *'If' you think someone unjustifiably removed your additions to an article with the edit summary "unsourced"... **'do' find a source for your additions **'do not' remove all unsourced content on the page or re-add your information claiming that the entire page is unsourced *'If' you think that this list of examples has become excessively long and boring... **'do' suggest that half of them may be deleted without loss for the understanding of the guideline **'do not' add 47 more cases, however plausible they are Note that egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator. See also * * * *